Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!ron
From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie )
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: GRAPEfruit?
Message-ID: <9366@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 12:24:19 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.9366
Posted: Wed Mar 20 12:24:19 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 00:18:51 EST
References: <179@ISM780.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 25

> >The large yellow fruit appears to grow in bunches on the tree.
> >
> >-Ron
> 
> You obviously haven't seen a grapefruit tree before.  The grapefruits hanging
> from the tree outside my window DO NOT hang in BUNCHES.  They grow as
> singletons on the end of twigs.  BTW, my Webster's New Collegiate doesn't
> give an etymology -- they must realize how silly it would sound.  So,
> does anyone have a real answer to this critical gap in the history of
> the English Language? (-:)
> 
I read the bunch theory before, possibly in the encyclopedia article on
fruit (we were having an argument on whether certain things commonly
called vegetables were fruit or not).  I am not alone in my silly
theory as several other people posted the same opinion.  Looking in
my Random House dictionary just now, I find:  [GRAPE+FRUIT, appar.
from the resemblence of its clusters to those of grapes].  Walking
accross the hall and picking up the Hernia edition Websters Third
New International Dictionary, I find in the definition section:
"...tree derived from the shadoch which it differs chiefly in fruit
characters, glabrous leaves and twigs, clustered growth of flowers
and fruit, ..." and it the etymology section: [so called from its growing
in clusters].

-Ron